I have put together a list of questions for the meeting tomorrow (Tuesday August 25).

This was in response to another thread where people who cannot attend were asking questions hoping that others might ask them tomorrow.

I have broken down the questions into categories, and given each one a number, to make it easy for people attending tomorrow to see which question is being asked.

This is no way should suggest that if you go you should not ask your own questions -- if you go, your questions take priority. And many of these questions may be answered before creditors have a chance to ask questions. Some questions may not be allowed (I believe questions are normally supposed to focus on assets, liabilities, and the financial condition of the company).

There may be time constraints, so of course it would be best to ask more important questions first.

It is clear to me that the emplacement of Chief Restructuring officer is so the CRO can under oath make statements shuch as "I don't know" or "That was before my association with Bullion Direct, I have now knowledge regarding any operational details of that time period."

It is the Sargent Shultz defense: I know nothing.

Perhaps the CRO will not have enen gotten up this morning__________________In Liberty,John Washburn

Originally Posted by JohnWashburnIt is clear to me that the emplacement of Chief Restructuring officer is so the CRO can under oath make statements shuch as "I don't know" or "That was before my association with Bullion Direct, I have now knowledge regarding any operational details of that time period."

It was actually Bullion Direct's attorney Mr. Martinec who insisted that Charles McAllister leave, and be replaced. I'm not sure who chose Dan Bensimon, but he has worked with Mr. Martinec before.

My guess is it has to the with the confirmed "possibly fraudulent" activity. But yes, it is very convenient to be able to say "I don't know" to a lot of questions.

That said, I did give Dan Bensimon a copy of the list of questions. So instead of saying "I don't know," he may have to say "I don't know because I did not have enough time to find out the answer."

Originally Posted by JohnWashburnIt is clear to me that the emplacement of Chief Restructuring officer is so the CRO can under oath make statements shuch as "I don't know" or "That was before my association with Bullion Direct, I have now knowledge regarding any operational details of that time period."

It was actually Bullion Direct's attorney Mr. Martinec who insisted that Charles McAllister leave, and be replaced. I'm not sure who chose Dan Bensimon, but he has worked with Mr. Martinec before.

is it possible for Mr. Bensimon to depose Mr. MacAllister under oath as part of his duties to investigate where the money/metal is/was? I realize most of MacAllister's answer would likely be: "I plead the 5th", but it seems procuring even these paltry answers are avenues a diligent CRO should be pursuing.__________________In Liberty,John Washburn

Originally Posted by JohnWashburnis it possible for Mr. Bensimon to depose Mr. MacAllister under oath as part of his duties to investigate where the money/metal is/was? I realize most of MacAllister's answer would likely be: "I plead the 5th", but it seems procuring even these paltry answers are avenues a diligent CRO should be pursuing.

That's called a 2004 examination, and similar to a deposition (and more formal that the creditors' meeting). They are usually requested by a trustee or creditor. A creditor can use it to help find property that is not part of the estate. A motion must be made, and the court must approve it.

So yes, that is something that Mr. Bensimon can (and likely should) pursue. Or perhaps the unsecured creditors' committee could pursue it.

Insert Photos

Web address (URL)

Image URL

If your URL is correct, you'll see an image preview here. Large images may take a few minutes to appear.
Remember: Using others' images on the web without their permission may be bad manners, or worse, copyright infringement.